Yes, it’s over

posted at 11:01 am on April 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Two months ago, I expressed my support for Rick Santorum for the Republican presidential nomination, an “endorsement” that came with some heavy qualifications, including the declaration that I would support whoever won the nomination. Santorum’s withdrawal allows me to consider the options, but in my column today for The Week, I point out that Santorum’s success came in part from his own efforts, and in part from lingering skepticism among conservatives about Mitt Romney:

That takes nothing away from Santorum’s amazing return from electoral obscurity to top-tier contender for the nomination. As ABC’s Rick Kleincommented on Twitter, Santorum won 10 states in this contest, an incredible feat for someone who had very little financial backing until he won a surprise victory in the non-binding Iowa caucuses in January. Santorum’s relevance in April may have been the most surprising outcome in a cycle that at times seemed defined by surprises among the Republican contenders — most of them unpleasant.

Santorum’s success can be credited in no small part to his surprising strength as a candidate. He outperformed his rivals in retail politicking in Iowa and proved himself tenacious when other, more highly-regarded candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain pulled out. Santorum also vigorously espoused his pro-life, pro-family agenda while relating both to the broader economic and fiscal concerns that drove the grassroots in the midterm elections.

However, the main subtext of Santorum’s survival was a significant and continuing level of disaffection with Mitt Romney among the conservative base. Grassroots conservatives rallied behind Santorum as the Not Romney after Newt Gingrich faded in Florida and Nevada. Santorum’s withdrawal comes after a series of losses in primaries over the last few weeks; Santorum won seven of the last 24 contests while Romney won 16 of them, with one tie for delegates in the Alaska caucuses. Santorum won only one state in the last eight contests (Louisiana).

Some of that skepticism may be evaporating, if the results in Wisconsin give any indication:

According to the exit polls from last week’s primary, Romney won almost all of the demographic categories in play. He carried a majority of Republicans (the Wisconsin primary is open to all registered voters), edged Santorum among “very conservative” voters, and won a plurality of independents. In a key indicator of grassroots response, Romney won a near-majority of Tea Party adherents (49 percent). Romney also led among Catholics, whose votes he had been regularly winning, and Protestants, where Santorum had usually performed stronger. He also won a majority among those who approve of embattled Gov. Scott Walker, which has become a cause celebre among conservative grassroots activists, and not just those in Wisconsin.

While many in the media are asking what’s next for Rick Santorum, the main question is what’s next for Republican voters in upcoming primary states. The math, as I explain in my column, all but guarantees Romney the nomination with Santorum out of the equation. The only potential obstacle is Newt Gingrich, who insisted yesterday that he will go all the way to Tampa and fight for delegates. In fact, he made a plea for Santorum’s delegates as part of his statement, but there is a problem with that pitch. Santorum has not officially withdrawn from the race, nor is he likely to do so. He needs to retain his candidate status in order to raise funds to retire whatever campaign debt remains, and it’s likely to be considerable. Santorum also needs to hold onto his bound delegates to negotiate a role at the convention and perhaps one in the Romney administration, if Romney wins the election.

There is a more fundamental problem with Gingrich’s plan, however, and that is a lack of credibility as a candidate at this stage. He hasn’t won a state since Super Tuesday, and that was his nominal home state of Georgia. In the five weeks since that time, Gingrich has won a grand total of 51 delegates and has been shut out entirely since March 13th. He’s no longer campaigning, and as Allahpundit noted last night, the campaign bounced a check in Utah for fees connected to ballot access. It wasn’t just a momentary lapse, either:

They’ve been trying to get in contact with the Gingrich campaign since the March 29, the day they realized where the check came from. Thomas claims they’ve sent several emails, made several calls, and even sent the campaign a certified letter on Monday to tell them their check bounced. They’ve even asked the Utah Republican Party to step in and clear up the matter. So far, they haven’t heard back from the Gingrich camp.

“I get the sense that maybe they’re, perhaps, winding down over there and maybe not in the full campaign mode as maybe they were,” he said.

Gingrich’s campaign officials still have time to get his name on the ballot.

“We do need payment before we will certify Gingrich’s name for the ballot,” Thomas said. “We gave them the deadline of April 20th to get that into our office.”

Laura Ingraham mentioned this on her show today, and the Gingrich campaign responded that the bounced check was caused by “a technical error.” The technical problem appears to be that they didn’t have the cash to cover the check, and that they don’t have anyone to respond to the problem. Needless to say, that’s not a campaign that is ready to become an alternative to the Romney campaign, no matter how much one likes the candidate.

It’s time for everyone to acknowledge reality. Mitt Romney is the nominee. He won the nomination through hard work and good organization, but his competition forced him to improve his performance along the way. The sooner we put fantasies of brokered conventions and one-on-one debates between Republicans — which will only serve as media fodder to attack the GOP — the better we will begin to prepare for the real goal of this process, which is to make Barack Obama a one-term President. With that goal in mind, I plan to caucus for Romney in the upcoming CD and state Republican conventions in Minnesota and work to unite the party behind its nominee. However, I also plan to support candidates in the House and Senate that will ensure that a President Romney governs as a conservative, as Donald Devine advises post-Santorum.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I’m just laughing at the posters who insist that if you go vote, and you vote for every conservative on the ballot, but you leave the President slot blank, YOU’RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!! OMG!!!!

Well, just remember, if you don’t cast a vote for Obama either, you’re voting for Romney. How’s that?

Of course that’s silly. It’s just as silly as the argument that if you fail to pull the lever for Romney, you’ll have cast a vote for Obama whether you actually pull the lever for him or not.

And the idea that somehow a vote for Obama is in effect the default vote amuses me, since it suggests that every person who is eligible to vote in this country who does not vote in November should be counted for Obama when it’s time to count up the votes. If that’s the case, then Obama’s on the way to winning a Reagan-Mondale-style landslide no matter what we do.

Does this prove a point for you or something? I don’t see what it shows other than the legislature and the Attorney General were uber liberal and ultimately in control of the nomination process for just who Romney could choose for benches in the state.

The fact remains that there were still 14 benches not filled when he left office. Why was that do you suppose?

Because Romney didn’t like the choices they were foisting on him.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Not really like that at all. You keep making these arguments, and not a single one has stood up to reality.

WHEREAS, under the Constitution and laws the Governor is charged with the responsibility for nominating and appointing, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, all judicial officers; and

Much like our Senate advice and consent. And that Executive Council, yes, it was highly partisan, but did not fight back on a single one of Romney’s choices. They played no part in telling Romney who to pick at all. Romney CHOSE to appoint who he appointed on his own volition. Romney left 14 open seats because he felt the Democrat would do a better job of picking progressives that meet Romney’s ideology better I would guess.

You can not complain much when someone wonders if you are a Marxist later on when no Democrat is Liberal (Marxist) enough for your taste. When all Communist call themselves Liberals or Progressives just like you call your self one.

Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Wut. This makes about as much sense as an Obama funded green energy firm.

Romney got more votes than the other guys. It’s not that hard to understand. And there are many of us that support Romney that were completely opposed to McCain in 2008, so you fail at understanding who Romney’s supporters are as well. They’re plenty conservative, just not Rick Santorum religious single issue socons like yourself.

I’m just laughing at the posters who insist that if you go vote, and you vote for every conservative on the ballot, but you leave the President slot blank, YOU’RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!! OMG!!!!

Well, just remember, if you don’t cast a vote for Obama either, you’re voting for Romney. How’s that?

Of course that’s silly. It’s just as silly as the argument that if you fail to pull the lever for Romney, you’ll have cast a vote for Obama whether you actually pull the lever for him or not.

And the idea that somehow a vote for Obama is in effect the default vote amuses me, since it suggests that every person who is eligible to vote in this country who does not vote in November should be counted for Obama when it’s time to count up the votes. If that’s the case, then Obama’s on the way to winning a Reagan-Mondale-style landslide no matter what we do.

Aitch748 on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Yeah, I’ve been trying to point that logical fault out on several threads for the past few weeks, but Rombots aren’t very good with numbers. They still think they can ignore conservatives, cause they’ll make up the difference with independents. Of course, most independents these days are former Republican conservatives, that left the party after McCain ’08 and the establishment started trying to kill the TEA Party in ’10.

I’m an independent, for instance, and I won’t ever vote for a democrat; which rules out Obama and Romney.

Ugh, there are times when I just want to dismiss the ABR’s around here as mentally ill. I won’t, but sometimes my patience wears thin.

As for judges.

A: On the state level the vast majority of judges deal with criminal cases, not constitutional cases.

B: Romney was clearly not free to choose any judge he pleased. He DID have to pick from a list of judges provided by a committee.

C: Even if he weren’t, the judges would still have to be confirmed by an overwhelmingly democratic legislature.

D: Despite all that, Romney gained a reputation for nominating judges that were very hard on crime. Seeing as this is the primary PURPOSE of state level judges, its clear he actually did a fairly good job despite his handicaps.

More importantly than all this however, Romney won. I’m sorry, you can yell and scream that the primary isn’t over all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Even the Gingrich campaign doesn’t honestly think they have a chance.

Fact of the matter is, that while you may not like Romney, you cannot “honestly,” say that he wouldn’t be a substantial improvement over Obama. He WAS the most conservative of the three big candidates of 2008, and even though the party has rightly become more conservative, he DOES still count as a conservative.

So seriously, enough is enough. Being disappointed is one thing, quietly rooting for Obama just because your feelings are hurt is something else entirely.

Please DO share ANY LIE I’ve told about Liberal Romney so I can supply the proof of my assertions.

I DARE YOU!

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Nobody cares. Just laughing at you’re “I’ve earned it” schtick.

And yes if you call Romney a Marxist, that’s a bold faced lie.

Did you miss this part? I guess you did.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You’re doing it wrong, SaurKraut – you gotta put on your official ABR approved Truecon(TM) goggles that will allow you to see what it really means by blocking out all the parts that don’t reinforce your ABR Romney = Obama narrative.

You establishment automatons gave us Clinton and Obama, and now you expect us to vote for Willard? Truly your stupidity knows no bounds.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Willard is THEIR canard this time. He can win without the conservatives. S*&^, the rombots have spent most of a year telling us how stupid, irrelevant, and meaningless the conservatives are. Ok then. Point conceded.
NOW GO WIN WITHOUT US ROMBOTS.

When he goes down, like the simpering moderate MUSH he is, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. You wanted the Republican party to go FULL WHIG?

You’re doing it wrong, SaurKraut – you gotta put on your official ABR approved Truecon(TM) goggles that will allow you to see what it really means by blocking out all the parts that don’t reinforce your ABR Romney = Obama narrative.

Ugh, there are times when I just want to dismiss the ABR’s around here as mentally ill. I won’t, but sometimes my patience wears thin.

As for judges.

A: On the state level the vast majority of judges deal with criminal cases, not constitutional cases.

But those who do deal with constitutional cases are picked from those in the rest of the judgeships. Thus preventing there being any conservative choices when there is a slot open at the Supreme Court.

B: Romney was clearly not free to choose any judge he pleased. He DID have to pick from a list of judges provided by a committee.

Yes he was clearly free to pick anyone he wanted. He is the person who commissioned the commission! through Executive order.

C: Even if he weren’t, the judges would still have to be confirmed by an overwhelmingly democratic legislature.

They did not stop a single one of his nominees. He never even tried to see what the limit was for them at all, he conservatively simply picked people so absolutely progressive they green lighted every single one of them. So he could have at the least done FAR better than he did.

D: Despite all that, Romney gained a reputation for nominating judges that were very hard on crime. Seeing as this is the primary PURPOSE of state level judges, its clear he actually did a fairly good job despite his handicaps.

Hard on crime and constitutional are not the same… Hanging a man for jaywalking is certainly not a good judicial outcome. Reputations are many times deceiving, having been fed by nothing but self promotion. He had the opportunity to promote conservatism, he pushed progressivism.

WolvenOne on April 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM

The one, and the ONLY reason that Romney supporters could have argued for voting Romney, the fact that he would pick better judges, has been destroyed. SUCK ON IT!

You establishment automatons gave us Clinton and Obama, and now you expect us to vote for Willard? Truly your stupidity knows no bounds.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Willard is THEIR canard this time. He can win without the conservatives. S*&^, the rombots have spent most of a year telling us how stupid, irrelevant, and meaningless the conservatives are. Ok then. Point conceded.

NOW GO WIN WITHOUT US ROMBOTS.

When he goes down, like the simpering moderate MUSH he is, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. You wanted the Republican party to go FULL WHIG?

Having put Conservatives on the bench in Massachusetts would have made Romney someone I would have considered at the very least being neutral on. Neutral being I might have just went straight party ticket in November and let him own my vote, but only because one check is easier than 20 or so. He failed to deliver there. he could have obviously done much more as Governor and got me to admire him and put signs out in my predominantly liberal by race neighborhood (90% certain, hint hint) and tell them why they would be better off voting Republican this time around. But, instead, every action he took that had the outcome of his position of power was used towards progressive goals.

Who said anything about surrendering? I don’t surrender to deluded people.

SauerKraut537 on April 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Because anyone who does not support a democrat like Romney is delusional – this is your line of reasoning, and this so perfectly illustrates why the conservatives are done with you.

This is why the Republican party needs to go away. This is why it needs to be torn in half – these RINOS hate us – they are embarrassed by us, our God, and our guns – their world view is so different from out that were are no longer compatible.

You people have more in common with the liberals than us, and you’ve for the second time in a row, forced your Democrat candidate on us.

No more. We will not enable you this time.
You go ahead and eat your own s*&^ sandwich.

You’ll get no help from us dragging your liberal looser over the finish line this time.

Like many Conservatives, it now looks like I will be forced to hold my nose and vote for Romney in November, because electing a flip-floppin’ Northeastern Moderate snob to the presidency is preferable to the Alinskyite Anti-American socialist we have as one now.

However, we Conservative Americans never should have allowed ourselves to be ignored by the Party we led to victory in the Midterms.

Yes he could’ve went into a political battle to end that committee so he could nominate any judge he wanted. Then of course he’d have to slip those judges through a legislature that was 85% democratic.

Bush had a hard time nominating conservative judges when Republicans CONTROLLED the legislature. If you think Romney could’ve done it when he was outnumbered THAT badly, then there’s some real-estate I’d like to sell you.

Fact of the matter is that if elected President, Romney will be under vastly different circumstances than he was as a governor. Additionally, we already KNOW what kind of judges Obama would nominate. It may not be an absolute certainty that Romney would elect strictly conservative judges, but the chances are MUCH better under Romney than Obama

Funny to hear Captain Ed saying that, as he was a die hard McCain supporter. The only reason McCain’s loss wasn’t a bigger blowout was due to Palin.

My reality is I had to start over in 2008 because of high gas prices costing me my stake in a family business which collapsed. Thankfully, at least I have a job, even though I’m making what I was in 1997. My reality is my party doesn’t give a d**n about winning this election or retaining my vote. They’d rather run a guy that makes used car salesman look like paragons of truth and principle.

I don’t need a reality check from some wannabe political prognosticator.

As weak as Obama is, Romney has maybe..a 35% chance of winning. Voting for a candidate I find repellent is going to be difficult, especially because I don’t think he has the guts to take Obama on strong. Like McCain, he’s happy to scorch other Republicans in the primary but I have a feeling, like McCain, he’s going to be nauseatingly polite to Obama, to try to curry favor with people that aren’t going to vote for him anyway.

Yes he could’ve went into a political battle to end that committee so he could nominate any judge he wanted. Then of course he’d have to slip those judges through a legislature that was 85% democratic.

Bush had a hard time nominating conservative judges when Republicans CONTROLLED the legislature. If you think Romney could’ve done it when he was outnumbered THAT badly, then there’s some real-estate I’d like to sell you.

Fact of the matter is that if elected President, Romney will be under vastly different circumstances than he was as a governor. Additionally, we already KNOW what kind of judges Obama would nominate. It may not be an absolute certainty that Romney would elect strictly conservative judges, but the chances are MUCH better under Romney than Obama

WolvenOne on April 11, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I repeat:

Rombots: “Quit holding Romney’s record against him! He was too weak to stand up to the liberals in the MA legislature!!”

The people you’re arguing with seem more interested in pounding their chests while they proclaim how little they compromise than they are in winning things. Romney could have stood on principle, sent arch-conservative after arch-conservative up for confirmation, had them all rejected and left a ton of vacancies sitting and waiting for the next Democrat governor to fill with Marxist activists, or he could have devised and executed a plan that would have gotten some Republicans on the bench. You seem to think the latter was preferable. I’m with you on that. It wouldn’t surprise me though if that sentiment isn’t unanimous.

I’m just laughing at the posters who insist that if you go vote, and you vote for every conservative on the ballot, but you leave the President slot blank, YOU’RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!! OMG!!!!

Well, just remember, if you don’t cast a vote for Obama either, you’re voting for Romney. How’s that?

Of course that’s silly. It’s just as silly as the argument that if you fail to pull the lever for Romney, you’ll have cast a vote for Obama whether you actually pull the lever for him or not.

And the idea that somehow a vote for Obama is in effect the default vote amuses me, since it suggests that every person who is eligible to vote in this country who does not vote in November should be counted for Obama when it’s time to count up the votes. If that’s the case, then Obama’s on the way to winning a Reagan-Mondale-style landslide no matter what we do.

However, we Conservative Americans never should have allowed ourselves to be ignored by the Party we led to victory in the Midterms.

kingsjester on April 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

.
Equating the smaller midterm elections to the National POTUS election is a mistake. Granted, while the best unifier for Rs in 2010 was a Maobama out of control- each region/state had different scenarios and needs. Scott Walker is a good example of that. Harry Reid a bad example.

Even a person fined for medicare fraud became the Gov. of Florida.
That would never fly Nationally.

Romney could have stood on principle, sent arch-conservative after arch-conservative up for confirmation, had them all rejected and left a ton of vacancies sitting and waiting for the next Democrat governor to fill with Marxist activists, or he could have devised and executed a plan that would have gotten some Republicans on the bench.

alchemist19 on April 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Does he ever stand on principle? That is what the concern is. Everyone says this guy has principles. But if you have principles, shouldn’t you stand on them, even when it is tough going? Just once in a while?

So you consider a 25% improvement [the number of Republicans Sketchy appointed as Governor] to be MUCH better? I call it a meager improvement at best.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Again, if elected President he’ll be under vastly different circumstances. Even assuming he made absolutely no change with appointments however, which is an unrealistic assumption, it’d still be a marked improvement over the 0% Republicans that are nominated by the President now.

That’d be a disappointment, but it’d STILL be better than what we have now.

I must leave for work, so I will leave you with the timeless advice of one Crow T. Robot:

Police the lives of those around you and get your sensibilities way the heck outta whack! Parade up and down the street in your underwear. Impose your ideas on others! It’s easy! Crush someone with an emotional word or an enigmatic look.

You decide. You do it!

I’m sick of this! I can’t make a decision! I’m no good at this sort of thing!

Tell me, what is the point in winning a mediocrity contest? Because that’s just what this election is shaping up to be thanks to the Mittler Youth Brigade.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Because mediocre is way better than an avowed Marxist.

I stole this line because it’s brilliant but I would vote for Obama’s first term over Obama’s second one. Everything Obama has done so far has been tempered with the knowledge he must face the voters again in the future. Imagine what he’s going to do when he doesn’t ever have to worry about that anymore. Just how “flexible” is he going to be if he’s re-elected and it comes time to deal with the Russians?

What bothers me the most about the non-Romney’s is that their dislike “appears” to be irrational. They always claim that Romney is some sort of moderate on a number of issues, when the person they are supporting (recently Santorum and Gingrich) have held the same views on a most of the issues they fault Romney for.

On mandates, Santorum supporters lambast Romney on for using the excuse of state rights and free-riders, yet those were exactly the excuses Santorum used in supporting closed shop work rules in his state.

Gingrich held the same positions on healthcare and global warming, how does a supporter knock Romney when their candidate held the same view?

The non-Romney’s need to get past it and get on with the real enemy – Barack Obama Chavez.

Tater Salad on April 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You would be wrong. In January, I was perfectly willing to support Romney if he were the nominee. Romney’s relentless trash and burn and salt the earth campaign destroyed the Republican Party. He leveled personal attacks designed to totally destroy his opponents and what he did on a national level, his surrogates here did on a personal level. That’s where I see absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama. Both nasty, dishonorable liars who will do anything to get what they want. We were told outright that our support was not wanted, while we were called vile names.

Those of us who prayed for deliverance from the winds that will blow now, will have to accept that the tribulation is here and if we decide to try and survive the catasrophe, how we are going to do it.

I asked a friend who ran black ops back in the day what one should stock up on to survive in a black market. His recommendation was booze and cigarettes. Instead of paying our bills, we should have been buying out the local liquor store.

Yes, I suspect that you’re right. I just wish that the ABR’s would either give it a rest or move on. Some of these subjects were perfectly valid during the primary, but beating on these drums at this point is an exercise in impotence.

The most they could accomplish is to make it juuuust a little easier for Obama to get elected. Looking back on the pure unmitigated disaster that is the Obama administration, it astounds me that these supposed conservative could think THAT was preferable to a Romney administration.

Those of us who prayed for deliverance from the winds that will blow now, will have to accept that the tribulation is here and if we decide to try and survive the catasrophe, how we are going to do it.

I asked a friend who ran black ops back in the day what one should stock up on to survive in a black market. His recommendation was booze and cigarettes. Instead of paying our bills, we should have been buying out the local liquor store.

Portia46 on April 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

man, oh, man, can you even breath, the pressure from that tin foil hat must be enormous :)…on a different note, don’t know why I was convinced that you bought that local liquor store long time ago :-)…